Monckton Sent "Cease and Desist" Letter by the House of Lords

This is following Monckton’s interview with Australian Radio earlier this month. When ABC Sydney’s Adam Spencer asked whether Monckton was a member, Monckton answered “yes, but without the right to sit or vote,” and later repeated clearly “I am a Member of the House.”

Clerk of Parliaments David Beamish sent the letter to Monckton last Friday, declaring “you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms.”

Beamish concludes the letter as follows:

I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member “without the right to sit or vote”.

I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.

David BeamishClerk of the Parliaments

According to the letter, this will be the third time that the House of Lords has asked Monckton to decist from his claim. Sir Michael Pownall wrote to Monckton twice in July 2010 with a similar request.

According to the Guardian, Monckton may also face prosecution by the Buckingham Palace for his misuse of the portcullis emblem—the official emblem of the House of Lords and property of the Queen. Monckton has been known to use a slightly modified version in his global warming presentations.

oh, His Lordship is very entitled to keep his freedom of speech, fortunately for everyone.
What he cannot do is to claim he’s a member of the House of Lords, as he didn’t manage to get elected to that position. And thus he cannot come in front of the US Senate claiming he’s an official elected member and thus backed up by this parliament …

Professor Nahle’s findings will come as no surprise to anyone who is up to speed with the other big climate story that has raised huge doubts over any so-called greenhouse effect. NASA now admits global warming just isn’t happening despite ever-rising levels of CO2.’

Another huge spike in the coffin.

Oh yes…. Monckton is proved right in this Peer reviewed test of the theory.

Hilarious. We watch the greenhouse effect happen daily via satellite and ground station monitoring (satellite readings show the IR scatter, and ground stations pick up the scatter that comes back down). And it’s old news that some particulates can counteract the greenhouse effect (see the global cooling issue, 1970s). Also, it is well known the greenhouse gases scatter IR, not block it. What you link to claims global warming science claims otherwise. That’s just lying.

The Robert W. Wood experiment is well-known to not be relevant to the greenhouse effect, and claiming it is is simply propaganda.

Read Rabett from a few years back: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/12/eli-rabett-and-rw-wood-r.html

Yeah right. 150 years of physics and chemistry has been proven wrong. And the biggest charlatan among skeptics, with no scientific background, is proven right. I bet Monckton would be a hit on the Art Bell radio show.
Your comments are getting worse and worse.

For those unfamiliar with this debate, let me introduce you to Christopher Monckton.

Monckton, who the GOP loves to call as an expert witness on climate change, is not a scientist. His only higher education is in journalism. Monckton is a complete charlatan, who has been completely and devastatingly debunked on several occasions by real scientists.

Here is a video of professor John Abraham demolishing every point Monckton had made in a university presentation.

Monckton claimed to have helped design British warships, and to have been scientific advisor to Margaret Thatcher. He wasnt. He served in some advisory position, but nothing to do with science.

The Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, as he likes to be called, claims to have discovered the cure for many diseases. He is well known in the world of GW skeptics. He is a real slick showman who is constantly on the campaign trail spreading his psuedo science, and who twists and distorts the science and is a complete fraud. Among real climate scientists he is something of a joke. He is considered one of the least credible of skeptics and that is saying a lot. Scientists consider him a joke, but are aware of the danger of men like this to the public’s understanding of science. He is clever and knows how to persuade an audience, unlike most real scientists, who aren’t very good at public speakng and being persuasive. He makes a lot of money on this dog and pony show. He’s like a jet set age travelling snake oil salesman.

He is known to make completely absurd claims, like that industrialization helps the environment and that global warming will be beneficial.

Monckton claims the earth is cooling. Or is it that global warming will be beneficial? Or is it that something other than greenhouse gases are causing global warming? Apparently he can’t quite make up his mind. But that doesn’t matter to these guys, they will say anything that sways a crowd. He’s a charlatan.

Here’s a video showing Monckton in action, and in what the author of the article calls Beyond Parody.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/monckton-goes-bp-in-bonn/

Barry Bickmore, - professor of geology at Brigham Young University, on Monckton.
“The moral of the story is not that amateurs should stay out of the debate about climate change, - Rather, the moral is that when you see a complete amateur raising objections about a highly technical subject, claiming that he or she has blown the lid off several decades of research in the discipline, you should be highly suspicious.”
h/t Eli at: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/04/monckton

you forgot two interesting facts :
- his assertions of being a member of a house of Lords are not without a bit of truth : he was candidate to an election in the upper chamber (as his title allows so), among 6? 7? candidates.
He didn’t manage to get a single vote.
- he is now scientific advisor in the UKIP , UK Independance Party.UK citizens could tell a lot about this group of lun… this political formation.

“”The House of Lords says I am not a member of it. My passport says I am - get used to it,”………Ahahaha. The lamest come back ever. The authority that he thinks he is part of, says he is not part of them….& he declares he IS because he has a piece of paper? Ahaha.

Dr Richard Dennis great a great job on Monktons nutjobbery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=207lg-1GWAE

Pity there is not better vid of it out yet. Deniers must be feeling like they hanging out with a sheer loon & it’s only just dawning on them.

Didn’t the bourgeois revolution a few centuries ago get rid of the legitimacy of lordship? And didn’t the U.S. fight a war against such idiocy. That the US Congress (and any other red-blooded, flag-waving, True American opponent of the Global Warming Hoax) would allow testimony from a minor member (a Peer, not a Lord) of the false authority that they once went to war against, and to do so in order to provide legitimacy for an error-riddled and unscientific argument against what is perhaps the defining crisis of the 21st century … well, I think it calls for grand understatement: it’s disappointing.

I’m glad to see you continue to be engaged and annoyed by Lord Monckton. He continues to fly around the world, talks to the public about the global threat of AGW alarmism, converts many alarmists to the skeptic side, gets plenty of face-time on tv and radio, still manages to get blog space on warmer sites like this and makes lots of money. He’s amazing. As long as he continues to get under your skin he will remain in demand. Keep up the great work.

Sadly, it seems the hereditary 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, Chris Monckton still ignores the cease and desist letter issued by the “House of Lords” and is now deliberately using the following title appended to all UK issued passports for hereditary nobles “”The holder is the right honourable”

it is your own very right to believe someone proven lying about his credential while taking oath in front of the representatives of the US citizens (US citizens whose ancestors fought against nobility, by the way - but US people look a lot like French people for this matter, somehow fawning over royalty …). After all, one could consider that the message is important, not the messenger, no matter how much he inflated his CV.
…
Wait, his message is totally lunatic, too.

By the way, do you think that greenhouse effect violates the second thermodynamical principle ? Take your time, grab a cold drink from your fridge, seek advice from Lord Monckton.

While the climate alarmists are frantically trying to dictate what Lord Monckton prints on his calling card, Lord Monckton keeps winning debates.

Watch this debate at the Australian National Press Club, and see why Climate Hysterics are so afraid of honestly debating their claims. Their claims never hold up, and Lord Monckton proves it every time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma6cnPLcrtA&feature=player_embedded#at=2470

Damn. You are right. They are everywhere.
Now that you mentioned it, we should dig the background of the mathematicians claiming to solve His Lordship puzzle. Maybe they were using climate alarmist’s computers …

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is not and has never been a member of the House of Lords. However, allegations that he has claimed to be a member, and that he has used an emblem resembling the parliamentary emblem, have been drawn to our attention.

The House is currently taking steps with a view to ensuring that Lord Monckton does not in future either claim to be a member of the House or use the parliamentary emblem or any variant thereof.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.